Am 27.04.98 schrieb apharris # burrito.onshore.com ... Moin Adam!
APH> * modularity of design; no hardcoded knowledge of various APH> documentation display systems (info, dwww, dhelp) APH> * ease of use by debian package developers (i.e., in maintainer scripts) APH> * utmost rebustness in the face of package remove, purging, APH> reinstallation, multiply shared /usr or /usr/doc dirs, etc. APH> * minimize system impact for end-user (i.e., installation speed) Ok. APH> This type of arrangement would decouple doc-base from the dww/dhelp, APH> i.e., if dhelp_parse syntax changed right now, I'd have to re-release APH> doc-base to accomodate that, which is sub-optimal. That#s right. APH> I currently believe that document language is an attribute of a APH> particular flavor of a document, and as such it should be handled as APH> such in the docid registration file. Display issues, again, are my APH> least concern right now; I want to *enable* radically effective APH> display systems, without actually telling them how they should go APH> about it. Ok, let#s start the discussion on the file format. I#ve downloaded your doc-base 0.6 package and read the file format description of doc-base. We could use that as basis for our file format. doc-base 0.6 doesn#t work on my system. I#ve send you a bug report. And I#ve uploaded dhelp 0.3.7 to fix you dhelp_parse problem. I hope this will fix your problem. APH> if a system which provides documentation complying with the guideline, APH> is it ok to submit a bug? If so, at this point, you could file your APH> "pre-rolled" docreg files for various packages as bugs (with patch APH> included) against the packages themselves. Nice idea. cu, Marco -- Uni: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fido: 2:240/5202.15 Mailbox: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.tu-harburg.de/~semb2204/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
